The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1887-08-06

My Dear Friend-Yours Of the
18th instant With its Enclosures has
been received.
l have heretofore declined to
answer any of the inquiries made
for my opinion on the constitu-
tional amendment now pending in
Texas. My reason for not reply.
ing was an unwillingness to enter
into a controversy in which my
friends in Texas stood arrayed
against each other.
In departing from the rule here
tofore observed, 1 trust that it
will not be an unwarrantable in.
trlsion.
Reared in the creed of Democ.
racy, my faith in its tenets has
grown with its growth, and I ad-
here to the maxim that "the world
is governed too much.n
When our fathers achieved their
independence the corner stone OF
the government they constructed
was individual liberty, and the So
cial organizations they established
were not for the surrender but for
the protection of natural rights.
For this governments were estab.
llshed deriving their just powers
from the consent Of the governed.
This was not to subject themselves
to the will of the majority, as ap-
pears from the fact that each CON-
munity inserted in its fundamental
law q bill of rights to guard the
inalienable privileges Of the indi.
vidual.
There was then o two.fold pur.
pose in government, protection
and prevention against trespass
by the strong upon the weak, the
many on the few.
The world had long suffered
from the expressions of govern.
ment under the pretext of ruling
by divine right, and excusing the
invasion into private and domestic
affairs on the plea Of paternal
care for the morals and good or
der Of the people.
Our sires rejected all such pre-
tensions, their system being: gov
ernmont by the people for the
people, and resting on the basis o.
natural, inalienable rights. Upor
the basis of these general propo
sitions ! will briefly answer The
inquiry In regard to the prohibi
tion amendment at issue.
BE ye temperate in all things
was a wise INJUNCTION, and would
apply to intolerance as well al
to drunkenness. That the intem
perate use of intoxicating liquors
is an evil, few IL any will deny.
That it is at the root Of man,
social disorders, is conceded, bn
then tho question arises, what d
the appropriate remedy, and wha'
the present necessity To destroy
individual liberty and moral re
sponsil,ility would be to eradicate
one evil by the substitution Of an
other, which IL is submitted wouli
be more fatal than that for which
it was offered as q remedy. The
abuse, and not the use of stimu
lants, 1t must be confessed, is thu
evil to be remedied. Then it clear
ly follows that action should bt
directed against the abuse rather
than the use. If drunkenness bt
the cause of disorder and crime
why not pronounce drunkenness
itself to be a crime and attach Il
1t proper and adequate penalties
If it be objected that the penal
ties could not be enforced, that II
an admission that popular opinion
would be opposed to the law; but
If 1t be true that jurles could moi
be impanneled who would convict
SO degraded q criminal as a drunk
ard, 1t necessarily follows that
statutory prohibition against the
sale and use Of intoxicants would
be o dead letter.
The next branch of the inquiry
is as to the present necessity.
l might appeal to men not al
old as myself to sustain the asser
ton that the convlvial use of In
toxicants, and the occurrence oi
drunkenness had become lesl
frequent within the last twont.
years than It was before. The re
fining influences of education ant
| Christianity may be credited will
this result. Why not allow thes'
blessed handmaidens of virtue AM
morality to continue unembarrass
cd their civilizing work. The par
| ties to this discussion in your Stat
have no doubt brought forwar'
the statistical facts in regard t,
the effect produced in other State
by THIS effort to control morals b.
legislation, and / will not encumbe
this letter by any reference +
those facts.
You have already provision fo